Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: A.J. Mullen who wrote (75722)	3/25/2008 2:15:43 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197155

It seems to me that you have adopted the mathematical definition, that if f(x)=y then f(2x) =2f(x). No, actually I've adopted a more simple mathematical formula - not an equality, but a pair of inequalities: $X <= $X+$Y >= $Y The value of a patent portfolio containing everything can not be equal to the value of part of that patent portfolio, unless the other part has a value of zero. So, Qualcomm can not charge Nokia the same amount for some of it's patents than it is legitimately charging everybody else for the same some patents, plus others Not without being either unreasonable, unfair, or discriminatory, somewhere. Your analogy with respect to death sentences is interesting, there are some similarities. However, two (or more) deaths are precisely equal to one death, rendering death valuations in a death portfolio infinitely non-linear. In contrast, patent valuations in a patent portfolio have considerably less non-linearity.